III[The necessary national political loyalty is not present
among Muslims]

Notwithstanding this difference in their ultimate
destiny, an attempt is made to force the Hindus and Muslims to live in
one country, as one people, bound by the political ties of a single constitution.
Assuming that this is done and that the Muslims are somehow manoeuvred
into it, what guarantee is there that the constitution will not break down
?

The successful working of a Parliamentary Government
assumes the existence of certain conditions. It is only when these conditions
exist that Parliamentary Government can take roots. One such condition
was pointed out by the late Lord Balfour when in 1925 he had an occasion
to discuss the political future of the Arab peoples in conversation with
his niece Blanche Dugdale.
In the course of this conversation he said/1/
:—

"It is partly the fault of the British nation—and
of the Americans; we can't exonerate them from blame either—that this idea
of 'representative government' has got into the heads of nations who haven't
the smallest notion of what its basis must be. It's difficult to explain,
and the Angio-Saxon races are bad at exposition. Moreover we know it so
well ourselves that it does not strike us as necessary to explain it. I
doubt if you would find it written in any book on the British Constitution
that the whole essence of British Parliamentary Government lies in the
intention to make the thing work. We take that for granted. We have spent
hundreds of years in elaborating a system that rests on that alone. It
is so deep in us that we have lost sight of it. But it is not so obvious
to others. These peoples—Indians, Egyptians, and so on—study our learning.
They read our history, our philosophy, and politics. They learn about our
parliamentary methods of obstruction, but nobody explains to them that
when it comes to the point, all our parliamentary parties are determined
that the machinery shan't stop. 'The king's government must go on' as the
Duke of Wellington said. But their idea is that the function of opposition
is to stop the machine. Nothing easier, of course, but hopeless."

Asked why the opposition in England does not go to the
length of stopping the machine, he said:—

Laski has well summarized these observations of Balfour
on the condition necessary for the successful working of Parliamentary
Government when he says/2/:

"The strength of Parliamentary Government is
exactly measured by the unity of political parties upon its fundamental
objects."

Having stated the condition necessary for the successful
working of the machinery of representative government, it will be well
to examine whether these conditions are present in India.

How far can we say that there is an intention in
the Hindus and the Muslims to make representative government work? To prove
the futility and unworkability of representative and responsible government,
it is enough even if one of the two parties shows an intention to stop
the machinery of government. If such an intention is enough, then it does
not matter much whether it is found in the Hindus or in the Muslims. The
Muslims being more outspoken than the Hindus, one gets to know their mind
more than one gets to know the mind of the Hindus. How the Muslim mind
will work and by what factors it is likely to be swayed will be clear if
the fundamental tenets of Islam which dominate Muslim politics and the
views expressed by prominent Muslims bearing on Muslim attitude towards
an Indian Government are taken into consideration. Certain of such religious
tenets of Islam and the views of some of the Muslim leaders are given below,
to enable all those who are capable of looking at things dispassionately
to judge for themselves whether the condition postulated by Balfour can
be said to exist in India.

Among the tenets one that calls for notice is the
tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule,
wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land,
the former must prevail over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified
in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land.

What the duty of the Musalmans is in such cases was
well pointed out by Maulana Mahomed Ali in the course of his statement
made in 1921 before the Committing Magistrate of Karachi in answer to the
charges for which he was prosecuted by the Government. The prosecution
arose out of a resolution passed at the session of the All-India Khilafat
Conference held in Karachi on 8th July 1921, at which Mr. Mahomed Ali presided
and introduced the resolution in question.

The resolution was as follows :—

"This meeting clearly proclaims that it is in
every way religiously unlawful for a Musalman at the present moment to
continue in the British Army, or to enter the Army, or to induce others
to join the Army. And it is the duly of all Musalmans in general and of
the Ulemas in particular to see that these religious commandments are brought
home to every Musalman in the Army."

Along with Maulana Mahomed Ali six other persons/3/
were prosecuted under Section 120-B read with Section 131, I. P. C., and
under Section 505 read with Section 114 and Section 505 read with Section
117, I. P. C., Maulana Mahomed Ali in justification of his plea of not
guilty, said/4/:—

"After all what is the meaning of this precious
prosecution. By whose convictions are we to be guided, we the Musalmans
and the Hindus of India? Speaking as a Musalman, if I am supposed to err
from the right path, the only way to convince me of my error is to refer
me to the Holy Koran or to the authentic traditions of the last Prophet—on
whom be peace and God's benediction—or the religious pronouncements of
recognized Muslim divines, past and present, which purport to be based
on these two original sources of Islamic authority demands from me in the
present circumstances, the precise action for which a Government, that
does not like to be called satanic, is prosecuting me to-day.

"If that which I neglect, becomes by my neglect a deadly
sin, and is yet a crime when I do not neglect it, how am I to consider
myself safe in this country?

"I must either be a sinner or a criminal. . . .Islam recognizes
one sovereignty alone, the sovereignty of God, which is supreme and unconditional,
indivisible and inalienable. . . .

* * * *

"The only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier,
whether living under a Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, is
commanded by the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to his
Prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans chief among
the last mentioned being of course that Prophet's successor or commander
of the faithful. . . .This doctrine of unity is not a mathematical formula
elaborated by abstruse thinkers but a work-a-day belief of every Musalman
learned or unlettered. . . .Musalmans have before this also and elsewhere
too, lived in peaceful subjection to non-Muslim administrations. But the
unalterable rule is and has always been that as Musalmans they can obey
only such laws and orders issued by their secular rulers as do not involve
disobedience to the commandments of God who in the expressive language
of the Holy Koran is the all-ruling ruler.' These very clear and
rigidly definite limits of obedience are not laid down with regard to the
authority of non-Muslim administration only. On the contrary they are of
universal application and can neither be enlarged nor reduced in any case."

This must make anyone wishing for a stable government
very apprehensive. But this is nothing to the Muslim tenets which prescribe
when a country is a motherland to the Muslim and when it is not.

According to Muslim Canon Law the world is divided
into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of
war). A country is Dar-ul-lslam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country
is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it.
That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland
of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans—but
it cannot be the land of the 'Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.'
Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by
the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a
non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being
Dar-ul-lslam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.

It must not be supposed that this view is only of
academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable
of influencing the conduct of the Muslims. It did greatly influence the
conduct of the Muslims when the British occupied India. The British occupation
raised no qualms in the minds of the Hindus. But so far as the Muslims
were concerned, it at once raised the question whether India was any longer
a suitable place of residence for Muslims. A discussion was started in
the Muslim community, which Dr. Titus says lasted for half a century, as
to whether India was Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-lslam. Some of the more zealous
elements, under the leadership of Sayyed Ahmad, actually did declare a
holy war, preached the necessity of emigration (Hijrat) to lands
under Muslim rule, and carried their agitation all over India.

It took all ingenuity of Sir Sayyed Ahmad, the founder
of the Aligarh movement, to persuade the Indian Musalmans not to regard
India under the British as Dar-ul-Harb merely because it was not under
Muslim rule. He urged upon the Muslims to regard it as Dar-ul-lslam, because
the Muslims were perfectly free to exercise all the essential rites and
ceremonies of their religion. The movement for Hijrat for the time being
died down. But the doctrine that India was Dar-ul-Harb had not been given
up. It was again preached by Muslim patriots during 1920-21, when the Khilafat
agitation was going on. The agitation was not without response from the
Muslim masses, and there was a goodly number of Muslims who not only showed
themselves ready to act in accordance with the Muslim Canon Law but actually
abandoned their homes in India and crossed over to Afghanistan.

It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is
not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb.
There is another injunction of Muslim Canon Law called Jihad (crusade)
by which it becomes "incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rule of
Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The
world, being divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb
(abode of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically,
it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform
Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-lslam." And just as there are instances of the
Muslims in India resorting to Hijrat, there are instances showing
that they have not hesitated to proclaim Jihad. The curious may
examine the history of the Mutiny of 1857; and if he does, he will find
that, in part, at any rate, it was really a Jihad proclaimed by
the Muslims against the British, and that the Mutiny so far as the Muslims
were concerned was a recrudescence of revolt which had been fostered by
Sayyed Ahmad who preached to the Musalmans for several decades that owing
to the occupation of India by the British the country had become a Dar-ul-Harb.
The Mutiny was an attempt by the Muslims to reconvert India into a Dar-ul-lslam.
A more recent instance was the invasion of India by Afghanistan in 1919.
It was engineered by the Musalmans of India who, led by the Khilafatists'
antipathy to the British Government, sought the assistance of Afghanistan
to emancipate India./5/ Whether
the invasion would have resulted in the emancipation of India or whether
it would have resulted in its subjugation, it is not possible to say, because
the invasion failed to take effect. Apart from this, the fact remains that
India, if not exclusively under Muslim rule, is a Dar-ul-Harb, and the
Musalmans according to the tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming
a Jihad.

Not only can they proclaim Jihad, but they
can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad a success,
or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help
that power in making its endeavour a success. This was clearly explained
by Mr. Mahomed Ali in his address to the Jury in the Sessions Court. Mr.
Mahomed Ali said:—

"But since the Government is apparently uninformed
about the manner in which our Faith colours and is meant to colour all
our actions, including those which, for the sake of convenience, are generally
characterised as mundane, one thing must be made clear, and it is this:
Islam does not permit the believer to pronounce an adverse judgement against
another believer without more convincing proof; and we could not, of course,
fight against our Muslim brothers without making sure that they were guilty
of wanton aggression, and did not take up arms in defence of their faith."
(This was in relation to the war that was going on between the British
and the Afghans in 1919.) "Now our position is this. Without better proof
of the Amir's malice or madness we certainly do not want Indian soldiers,
including the Musalmans, and particularly with our own encouragement and
assistance, to attack Afghanistan and effectively occupy if first, and
then be a prey to more perplexity and perturbation afterwards.

"But if on the contrary His Majesty the Amir has no quarrel
with India and her people and if his motive must be attributed, as the
Secretary of State has publicly said, to the unrest which exists throughout
the Mahomedan world, an unrest with which he openly professed to be in
cordial sympathy, that is to say, if impelled by the same religious motive
that has forced Muslims to contemplate Hijrat, the alternative of
the weak, which is all that is within our restricted means. His Majesty
has been forced to contemplate Jihad, the alternative of those comparatively
stronger which he may have found within his means; if he has taken up the
challenge of those who believed in force and yet more force, and he intends
to try conclusions with those who require Musalmans to wage war against
the Khilafat and those engaged in Jihad; who are in wrongful occupation
of the Jazirut-ul-Arab and the holy places; who aim at the weakening of
Islam; discriminate against it, and deny to us full freedom to advocate
its cause; then the clear law of Islam requires that in the first place,
in no case whatever should a Musalman render anyone any assistance against
him; and in the next place if the Jihad approaches my region every
Musalman in that region must join the Mujahidin and assist them to the
best of his or her power.

"Such is the clear and undisputed law of Islam; and we
had explained this to the Committee investigating our case when it had
put to us a question about the religious duty of a Muslim subject of a
non-Muslim power when Jihad had been declared against it, long before
there was any notion of trouble on the Frontiers, and when the late Amir
was still alive."

A third tenet which calls for notice as being relevant
to the issue is that Islam does not recognize territorial affinities. Its
affinities are social and religious and therefore extraterritorial. Here
again Maulana Mahomed Ali will be the best witness. When he was committed
to the Sessions Court in Karachi Mr. Mahomed Ali, addressing the Jury,
said:—

"One thing has to be made clear as we have since
discovered that the doctrine to which we shall now advert is not so generally
known in non-Muslim and particularly in official circles as it ought to
be. A Musalman's faith does not consist merely in believing in a set of
doctrines and living up to that belief himself; he must also exert him
self to the fullest extent of his power, of course without resort to any
compulsion, to the end that others also conform to the prescribed belief
and practices. This is spoken of in the Holy Koran as Amribilmaroof
and Nahi anilmunkar, and certain distinct chapters of the Holy Prophet's
traditions relate to this essential doctrine of Islam. A Musalman cannot
say: 'I am not my brother's keeper,' for in a sense he is and his own salvation
cannot be assured to him unless he exhorts others also to do good and dehorts
them against doing evil. If therefore any Musalman is being compelled to
wage war against the Mujahid of Islam, he must not only be a conscientious
objector himself, but must, if he values his own salvation, persuade his
brothers also at whatever risk to himself to take similar objection. Then
and not until then, can he hope for salvation. This is our belief as well
as the belief of every other Musalman and in our humble way we seek to
live up to it; and if we are denied freedom to inculcate this doctrine,
we must conclude that the land, where this freedom does not exist, is not
safe for Islam."

This is the basis of Pan-Islamism. It is this which
leads every Musalman in India to say that he is a Muslim first and Indian
afterwards. It is this sentiment which explains why the Indian Muslim has
taken so small a part in the advancement of India but has spent himself
to exhaustion/6/ by taking
up the cause of Muslim countries and why Muslim countries occupy the first
place and India occupies a second place in his thoughts. His Highness the
Aga Khan justifies it by saying/7/:—

"This is a right and legitimate Pan-Islamism
to which every sincere and believing Mahomedan belongs—that is, the theory
of the spiritual brotherhood and unity of the children of the Prophet.
It is a deep, perennial element in that Perso-Arabian culture, that great
family of civilization to which we gave the name Islamic in the first chapter.
It connotes charity and good-will towards fellow-believers everywhere from
China to Morocco, from the Volga to Singapore. It means an abiding interest
in the literature of Islam, in her beautiful arts, in her lovely architecture,
in her entrancing poetry. It also means a true reformation—a return to
the early and pure simplicity of the faith, to its preaching by persuasion
and argument, to the manifestation of a spiritual power in individual lives,
to beneficent activity of mankind. The natural and worthy spiritual movement
makes not only the Master and His teaching but also His children of all
climes an object of affection to the Turk or the Afghan, to the Indian
or the Egyptian. A famine or a desolating fire in the Muslim quarters of
Kashgar or Sarajevo would immediately draw the sympathy and material assistance
of the Mahomedan of Delhi or Cairo. The real spiritual and cultural unity
of Islam must ever grow, for to the follower of the Prophet it is the foundation
of the life of the soul."

If this spiritual Pan-lslamism seeks to issue forth
in political Pan-lslamism, it cannot be said to be unnatural. It is perhaps
that feeling which was in the mind of the Aga Khan when he said/8/:—

"It is for the Indian patriot to recognise that
Persia, Afghanistan and possibly Arabia must sooner or later come within
the orbit of some Continental Power—such as Germany, or what may grow out
of the break up of Russia—or must throw in their lot with that of the Indian
Empire, with which they have so much more genuine affinity. The world forces
that move small States into closer contact with powerful neighbours, though
so far most visible in Europe, will inevitably make themselves felt in
Asia. Unless she is willing to accept the prospect of having powerful and
possibly inimical neighbours to watch, and the heavy military burdens thereby
entailed, India cannot afford to neglect to draw her Mahomedan neighbour
States to herself by the ties of mutual interest and goodwill.

"In a word, the path of beneficent and growing union must
be based on a federal India, with every member exercising her individual
rights, her historic peculiarities and natural interests, yet protected
by a common defensive system and customs union from external danger and
economic exploitation by stronger forces. Such a federal India would promptly
bring Ceylon to the bosom of her natural mother, and the further developments
we have indicated would follow. We can build a great South Asiatic Federation
by now laying the foundations wide and deep on justice, on liberty, and
on recognition for every race, every religion, and every historical entity.

"A sincere policy of assisting both Persia and Afghanistan
in the onward march which modem conditions demand, will raise two natural
ramparts for India in the north-west that neither German nor Slav, Turk
nor Mongol, can ever hope to destroy. They will be drawn of their own accord
towards the Power which provides the object lesson of a healthy form of
federalism in India, with real autonomy for each province, with the internal
freedom of principalities assured, with a revived and liberalised kingdom
of Hyderabad, including the Berars, under the Nizam. They would see in
India freedom and order, autonomy and yet Imperial union, and would appreciate
for themselves the advantages of a confederation assuring the continuance
of internal self-government buttressed by goodwill, the immense and unlimited
strength of that great Empire on which the sun never sets. The British
position of Mesopotamia and Arabia also, whatever its nominal form may
be, would be infinitely strengthened by the policy I have advocated."

The South Asiatic Federation was more for the good of
the Muslim countries such as Arabia, Mesopotamia and Afghanistan than for
the good of India./9/ This
shows how very naturally the thoughts of Indian Musalmansare occupied by
considerations of Muslim countries other than those of India.

Government is based on obedience to authority. But
those who are eager to establish self-government of Hindus and Muslims
do not seem to have stopped to inquire on what such obedience depends,
and how far such obedience would be forthcoming in the usual course and
in moments of crisis. This is a very important question. For, if obedience
fails, self-government means working together and not working under. That
may be so in an ideal sense. But in practical and work-a-day world, if
the elements brought under one representative government are disproportionate
in numbers, the minor section will have to work under the major section;
and whether it works under the major section or not will depend upon how
far it is disposed to obey the authority of the government carried on by
the major section. So important is this factor in the success of self-government
that Balfour may be said to have spoken only part of the truth when he
made its success dependent upon parties being fundamentally at one. He
failed to note that willingness to obey the authority of Government is
a factor equally necessary for the success of any scheme of self-government.

The importance of this second condition, the existence
of which is necessary for a successful working of parliamentary government,
has been discussed by/10/ James
Bryce. While dealing with the basis of political cohesion, Bryce points
out that while force may have done much to build up States, force is only
one among many factors and not the most important. In creating, moulding,
expanding and knitting together political communities what is more important
than force is obedience. This willingness to obey and comply with the sanctions
of a government depends upon certain psychological attributes of the individual
citizens and groups. According to Bryc,e the attitudes which produce obedience
are indolence, deference, sympathy, fear and reason. All are not of the
same value. Indeed they are relative in their importance as causes producing
a disposition to obey. As formulated by Bryce, in the sum total of obedience
the percentage due to fear and to reason respectively is much less than
that due to indolence, and less also than that due to deference or sympathy.
According to this view deference and sympathy are, therefore, the two most
powerful factors which predispose a people to obey the authority of its
government.

Willingness to render obedience to the authority
of the government is as essential for the stability of government as the
unity of political parties on the fundamentals of the state. It is impossible
for any sane person to question the importance of obedience in the maintenance
of the state. To believe in civil disobedience is to believe in anarchy.

How far will Muslims obey the authority of a government
manned and controlled by the Hindus? The answer to this question need not
call for much inquiry. To the Muslims a Hindu is a Kaffir./11/
A Kaffir is not worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status. That
is why a country which is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman.
Given this, no further evidence seems to be necessary to prove that the
Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of deference
and sympathy, which predispose persons to obey the authority of government,
do not simply exist. But if proof is wanted, there is no dearth of it.
It is so abundant that the problem is what to tender and what to omit.

In the midst of the Khilafat agitation, when the
Hindus were doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did not forget
that as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior race.
A Musalman wrote/12/ in the
Khilafat paper called Insaf:—

"What is the meaning of Swami and Mahatma? Can
Muslims use in speech or writing these words about non-Muslims? He says
that Swami means 'Master', and 'Mahatma' means 'possessed of the highest
spiritual power ' and is equivalent to 'Ruh-i-aazam', and the supreme spirit."

He asked the Muslim divines to decide by an authoritative
fatwa
whether it was lawful for Muslims to call non-Muslims by such deferential
and reverential titles.
A remarkable incident was reported/13/
in connection with the celebration of Mr. Gandhi's release from gaol in
1924 at the Tibbia College of Yunani medicine run by Hakim Ajmal Khan at
Delhi. According to the report, a Hindu student compared Mr. Gandhi to
Hazarat Isa (Jesus) and at this sacrilege to the Musalman sentiment all
the Musalman students flared up and threatened the Hindu student with violence,
and, it is alleged, even the Musalman professors joined with their co-religionists
in this demonstration of their outraged feelings.

In 1923 Mr. Mahomed Ali presided over the session
of the Indian National Congress. In this address he spoke of Mr. Gandhi
in the following terms :

"Many have compared the Mahatma's teachings,
and latterly his personal sufferings, to those of Jesus (on whom be peace).
. . .When Jesus contemplated the world at the outset of his ministry he
was called upon to make his choice of the weapons of reform. . . .The idea
of being all-powerful by suffering and resignation, and of triumphing over
force by purity of heart, is as old as the days of Abel and Cain, the first
progeny of man. . . .

"Be that as it may, it was just as peculiar to Mahatma
Gandhi also; but it was reserved for a Christian Government to treat as
felon the most Christ like man of our time (Shame, Shame) and to penalize
as a disturber of the public peace the one man engaged in public affairs
who comes nearest to the Prince of Peace. The political conditions of India
just before the advent of the Mahatma resembled those of Judea on the eve
of the advent of Jesus, and the prescription that he offered to those in
search of a remedy for the ills of India was the same that Jesus had dispensed
before in Judea. Self-purification through suffering; a moral preparation
for the responsibilities of governmen ; self-discipline as the condition
precedent of Swaraj—this was Mahatma's creed and conviction; and those
of us, who have been privileged to have lived in the glorious year that
culminated in the Congress session at Ahmedabad, have seen what a remarkable
and rapid change he wrought in the thoughts, feelings and actions of such
large masses of mankind."

A year after, Mr. Mahomed Ali, speaking at Aligarh and Ajmere, said :

"However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be,
he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any
Musalman, even though he be without character."

The statement created a great stir. Many did not believe
that Mr. Mahomed Ali, who testified to so much veneration for Mr. Gandhi,
was capable of entertaining such ungenerous and contemptuous sentiments
about him. When Mr. Mahomed Ali was speaking at a meeting held at Aminabad
Park in Lucknow, he was asked whether the sentiments attributed to him
were true. Mr. Mahomed Ali without any hesitation or compunction replied/14/:

"Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do
hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi."

It was suggested/15/
at the time that Mr. Mahomed Ali had to recant because the whole of the
orthodox Muslim community had taken offence for his having shown such deference
to Mr. Gandhi, who was a Kaffir, as to put him on the same pedestal as
Jesus. Such praise of a Kaffir, they felt, was forbidden by the Muslim
Canon Law.

In a manifesto/16/
on Hindu-Muslim relations issued in 1928, Khwaja Hasan Nizami declared:

"Musalmans are separate from Hindus; they cannot
unite with the Hindus. After bloody wars the Musalmans conquered India,
and the English took India from them. The Musalmans are one united nation
and they alone will be masters of India. They will never give up their
individuality. They have ruled India for hundreds of years, and hence they
have a prescriptive right over the country. The Hindus are a minor community
in the world. They are never free from internecine quarrels; they believe
in Gandhi and worship the cow; they are polluted by taking other people's
water. The Hindus do not care for self-government; they have no time to
spare for it; let them go on with their internal squabbles. What capacity
have they for ruling over men? The Musalmans did rule, and the Musalmans
will rule."

Far from rendering obedience to Hindus, the Muslims
seem to be ready to try conclusions with the Hindus again. In 1926 there
arose a controversy as to who really won the third battle of Panipat, fought
in 1761. It was contended for the Muslims that it was a great victory for
them because Ahmad Shah Abdali had I lakh of soldiers while the Mahrattas
had 4 to 6 lakhs. The Hindus replied that it was a victory to them—a victory
to [the] vanquished—because it stemmed the tide of Muslim invasions. The
Muslims were not prepared to admit defeat at the hands of Hindus, and claimed
that they will always prove superior to the Hindus. To prove the eternal
superiority of Muslims over Hindus, it was proposed by one Maulana Akbar
Shah Khan of Najibabad in all seriousness, that the Hindus and Muslims
should fight, under test conditions, [a] fourth battle on the same fateful
plain of Panipat. The Maulana accordingly issued/17/
a challenge to Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya in the following terms:

"If you Malaviyaji, are making efforts to falsify the result
at Panipat, I shall show you an easy and an excellent way (of testing it).
Use your well-known influence and induce the British Government to permit
the fourth battle of Panipat to be fought without hindrance from the authorities.
I am ready to provide. . . .a comparative test of the valour and fighting
spirit of the Hindus and the Musalmans. . . .As there are seven crores
of Musalmans in India, I shall arrive on a fixed date on the plain of Panipat
with 700 Musalmans representing the seven crores of Muslims in India and
as there are 22 crores of Hindus I allow you to come with 2,200 Hindus.
The proper thing is not to use cannon, machine guns or bombs: only swords
and javelins and spears, bows and arrows and daggers should be used. If
you cannot accept the post of generalissimo of the Hindu host, you may
give it to any descendant of Sadashivrao/18/
or Vishwasrao so that their scions may have an opportunity to avenge the
defeat of their ancestors in 1761. But any way do come as a spectator;
for on seeing the result of this battle you will have to change your views,
and I hope there will be then an end of the present discord and fighting
in the country. . . .In conclusion I beg to add that among the 700 men
that I shall bring there will be no Pathans or Afghans as you are mortally
afraid of them. So I shall bring with me only Indian Musalmans of good
family who are staunch adherents of Shariat."

/5/ This interesting and
awful episode has been examined in some details, giving the part played
therein by Mr. Gandhi, in a series of articles in the issues of the Maratha,
for the year by Mr. Karandikar.

/6/ Between 1912 when the
first Balkan war began, and 1922 when Turkey made peace with the European
Powers, the Indian Muslims did not bother about Indian politics in the
least. They were completely absorbed in the fate of Turkey and Arabia.

/9/ What a terrible thing
it would have been if this South Asiatic Federation had come into being!
Hindus would have been reduced to the position of a distressed minority.
The Indian Annual Register says: "Supporters of British Imperialism
in the Muslim community of India have also been active trying by the organization
of an Anglo-Muslim alliance to stabilize the role of Britain in Southern
Asia, from Arabia to the Malaya Archipelago, wherein the Muslims will be
junior partners in the firm at present, hoping to rise in time to the senior
partnership. It was to some such feeling and anticipation that we must
trace the scheme adumbrated by His Highness the Aga Khan in his book India
in Transition published during the war years. The scheme had planned
for the setting up of a South Western Asiatic Federation of which India
might be a constituent unit. After the war when Mr. Winston Churchill
was Secretary of Stale for the Colonies in the British Cabinet, he found
in the archives of the Middle Eastern Department a scheme ready-made of
a Middle Eastern Empire."—1938, Vol. II, Section on "India in Home Polity,"
p. 48.